[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: oom killer and its superior braindamage in 2.4
> > If you read my post, the bug is that the kernel CANNOT kill that
> > process? Why? If it's really a bad process, shouldn't it be the one
> > that gets killed?
> > This is my question, and I don't see how the patch addresses it.
> And you won't see one, either. You cannot change the
> semantics of uninterruptible sleep, nor can the OOM
> killer change other device driver things.

So you're saying that a process can stay in the D state, without ever
getting enough resources to complete a single Uninteruptible wait, for
hours at a time?

Ok. Now I understand your patch. Thanks for the info.

You should push your patch to Marcelo.


| David Mansfield |
| |

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.039 / U:8.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site